21/02/2013 Question Time

Tonight, Question Time comes from St Paul's Cathedral in London. We

are directly under the great dome designed by Sir Christopher wren

and this is of course primarily a place of worship but it's also used

as a place to debate the great issues of the day often actually

right here under the dome, or in centuries past, outside in the

cathedral precinct by St Paul's Good evening to you at home and to

our add Jens here at St Paul's and to our panel, the Business

Secretary, Vince Cable, the Shadow Health Minister, Diane Abbott, the

former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, Mail on Sunday

columnist, Peter Hitchens and the Reverend Giles Fraser back in St

Paul's for the first time since he resigned his post here over the

handling of the protesters in last year's Occupy camp.

Thanks very much and Matt Babington has our first question? In light of

the recent high profile case, is it time for fundamental overhauls in

the way people are selected for jury service?

The Vicky Pryce case of course was led to the jury being dismissed. Is

it time for a fundamental overhaul of the way people are selected?

Diane Abbott? No. I think the principle that you are judged by a

jury of your peers is very important. One thing we have to

remember about the case in question was that the point at issue was

this notion of marital coercion and I'd not heard of it as a legal

concept before now. I'm not surprised, in a way that, the jury

got a bit muddled. This clearly wasn't perhaps the best jury one

has ever heard of, but if you speak to lawyers and judges and people in

the legal profession, the principle of trial by jury is very important

and it helps to give the legal system some legitimacy because

jurors by and large are the only part of the criminal justice system

which is actually a cross section of the wider society.

Peter Hitchens? Yes, it does need an overhaul. It's partly because it

was overhauled and people do know it and some don't, the old property

qualification was dropped and people say that was unjust. There

was a lot of discussion at the time as to whether we should then have

some kind of educational qualification, but they couldn't

agree, so they said everybody on the electoral role should be on the

jury. At that time, the minimum age for voting was 21, it's now dropped

to 18. I think that, although many juries, and I think many people may

have served on them, are extremely serious and do their job very well,

there is a number of juriesry falls below the proper standard which

contain people who simply can't capable of judging the facts before

them properly. I think it's time we had some sort of educational

qualification and also some sort of minimum age. I think 18 is too

young to decide the fate of another human being.

What was the property qualification and why do you think that was

better? I don't think it was better, it needed to be reformed. In those

days, it ruled out in England women almost entirely. In Scotland, they

adjusted it so it allowed women in, but it meant you had to be middle

class to be on a jury and they decided this had to go. In their

thrust, they could not think of any educational or any other

qualification to set in its place so everybody gets on. It's clear

that not everybody, and if you were facing trial and your entire future

and liberty and reputation depended on 12 people, you would be worried

by some of the juries which people have to face. There's another thing

about this which we again forget, back in the 60s, Roy Jenkins got

rid of unanimous juries and many will have seen the film 12 Angry

Men. The whole principle was that it had to be unanimous where if

someone was convinced about someone's guilt, they could hold

out until the end until everyone agreed with them. Now it's gone and

it's a matter of time passing and the judge can say, go away and get

a majority. These protections are very important for a free society,

otherwise a trial is nothing but the state ganging up on you.

woman in the middle? I'm a serving police officer. I've seen a number

of juries and a number of different almost types of jurys in different

courts and it's quite apparent that there are some major failings in

the system. I've seen jurors falling asloop and yet they are not

challenged in the court -- asleep. There are real concerns around

things like that. It's difficult to suggest an educational standard as

a minimum but I suggest if failing on the part -- a failing on the

part of the prosecution or defence not to ensure that you are working

to the lowest common denominator, whether they have a HPD or whether

they completed school should make no difference, it should be give

tonne them in the words that they can comprehend what's happening --

PhD. But what if you have a jury... It's weird for a juror to say come

to a verdict base on the a reason that wasn't presented in court and

has no facts to support it either from the prosecution or defence.

What was that all about? Giles Fraser? I couldn't disagree more

with you, Peter, about that business about having to be

intelligent to be on a jury. We have a common law, it's law that's

judged by the common people, we all judge each other, that's using

common-sense. The idea that intelligence is some way of

protecting us against some sort of irrationality in making these

decisions is not fair. David was right when he said reason is a

slave to the passions and reason isn't always what you want. You

want people, us ordinary people, judging each other, that's a basic

principle and if you have to be clever or posh or have a house, I

think that fundamentally undermines a basic principle of justice. We,

as the people of this country, judge each other in court. Can I

just say, it's not intelligence. This is very important this, it's

not some kind of IQ rating that I'm suggesting, it's experience and

wisdom. You are deciding the fate of a fellow human. It's not

intelligence. I understand that. The man in the front? This is one

high profile case. Had it not been in the newspapers and the media, we

wouldn't know about it. This is just another knee-jerk reaction

brought about by people like yourself, Peter, who'll do it

because it's something to shout about.

Michael Heseltine? It's very important really. The point about

the exception case is important and I strongly would argue for the

status quo. Peter helped me by giving examples of the sort of

changes that he had in mind. He mentioned age. Well, we are

perfectly prepared to send people out at the age of 18 to kill people

in Britain's name all over the world where it's appropriate and

are you seriously telling me they are too young to make a judgment

about what is right or wrong? I don't believe that.

APPLAUSE And Peter's other point was, they

need to be educated. Who is going to decide who is and who is not

educated or what being educated amounts to? The moment you start

asking these questions, you have to have someone to make the decision.

Who makes the decision? People appointed by the party politicians?

Some independent group of worthys who've got an intellectual approach

to life? You tell me of someone that you would accept as a

reasonable alternative for one ludicrous decision by a jury to ask

the question David asked drk can we take into account evidence for

which there is no fact, nothing to base it on and was never raised in

this court? How can you begin to ask a question like that if you are

sitting on a jury? The man on the gangway? I think as

soon as you start making it about someone's educational level or

their age, you make it a preserve of a certain strata of society

which I thought was counterproductive to what the whole

point was. I suppose the assumption isn't that all 12 jurors wanted to

ask this question but maybe one or two did, isn't it? And then the

rest of the jury said, we can't explain it to you, we'd better get

the judge to explain it to you. Is that your reading of it? Yes, the

point's been made that this was a very odd case and unusual trial.

The point is, you are going to get people on juries that are not very

bright and jurors that are incompetent, but you will get

judges and prosecutors who are incompetent. Giles is right, it's

one of the basic principles of criminal justice in the UK that you

have a right to be tried by your peers through a jury. We tamper

with it at our peril. At the past, politicians have tried to remove

jury trials, it was suggested that the ordinary members of public are

not bright enough to deal with fraud trials. That was a backward

move. I think the jury system is obviously going to have bad cases

but we should preserve the principles, it's a right one and we

should treasure it. One more point and we'll move on. The lady there?

Should we ensure that all jurors can speak English and understand

English? I don't think that was the issue... That's not the question.

This was an exceptional jury and you shouldn't make extrapolations

about juries, you know, a lady there said she'd seen jurors

falling asleep, I've heard of judges falling asleep and

barristers that could send you to sleep.

LAUGHTER I believe that the right to a jury trial by people that look

like a cross section of the wider community is absolutely crucial for

people like my constituents continuing to have confidence in

the criminal justice system. must be right that... But you do

have to speak English? It must be right that you have to speak

English or you can't begin to understand the trial. That's not an

issue. It wasn't named as an issue in this particular case, but there

will be cases, and there are cases, where some jurors don't have

English as their first language and may speak it but may not fully

understand the nuances of some of the stuff that is discussed and

someone in court might have an interpreter, but the jury members

donts. -- don't. donts. -- don't.

APPLAUSE This is not just an individual case.

If you are conscious of what is going on in the courts and pay

attention and report on them, you will see there is a problem with

juries which goes wider than this case. One thing I might say to

Michael Heseltine, the very run why we send young men out as soldiers

often wrongly is because they are young, unwise and prepared to kill

and risk terrible danger in a way that wise people wouldn't and...

That is true... The truth is not popular but it's the case. Why do

we send young men out to kill? Xaept because of that and secondly,

you might be aware of the fact that there are strong moves to lower the

voting age to 16. How many of you want your futures decided by 16-

year-olds? APPLAUSE As a former Secretary of

State for Defence to describe the British armed forces in the wrai

you did is disgraceful -- way you did is disgraceful.

APPLAUSE. I haven't described the British armed forces in any sense

at all, I've... You described the soldiers in language which was

viciously unfair to them. Young men are unwise, you were unwise when

you were young and so was I and don't try to deny it or silence me

with silly rhetoric. It's ridiculous. I've said nothing

uncomplimentary about the Armed Forces and you know it perfectly

well. You wait until you see the transcript.

Just to clarify, perhaps you would say what you said about 18-year-

olds once more? We cynical politicians send young men out to

kill and be killed. That's what I said. No, it's not what you said.

It is. You said they were stupid. said no such thing. Check the

recording. We'll see the record. You, Sir? I'm 18, joining the Armed

Forces next year, I think I can make an educated decision much more

than older people. I'm mature enough to decide on what I want to

do and also to be on a jury if I The next question is from Tom Crill.

Heather Frost, an unemployed mother of 11, is being a six-bedroom eco-

mansion by her local council. Is this an example of society looking

after those in need? Or is it a waste of taxpayers' money? Vince

Cable? We don't know a great deal about this family other than what

her neighbours didn't approve of her told one of the popular

newspapers. This was, as I understand it, was not a mansion.

It was being occupied at two-and-a- half people a room. She was accused

of having a horse. She had quite a large family and, as I understand

it, the older children were working and earning and paid for it. The

really serious issue was that the popular press went for this lady

because she had a large number of children, she had 11 children. The

argument was isn't this woman feckless? Well, it turned out when

people investigated that she was sterile. She has had cervical

cancer and nobody had the sensitivity to realise that was her

problem. They jumped on this bandwagon, a woman with a horse, a

big house, let's trash her, it is a good way of attacking the benefits

system. It was outrageous the way it was dealt with. OK. Iain Duncan

Smith in your Government has floated the idea of capping child

benefits to two children, hasn't he? After two children, it is up to

you? That is a foolish suggestion. I have said so many times.

think it won't happen? Of course it won't happen. What they do under

the Conservative Government is up to them. This is not coalition

policy. Michael Heseltine? It is not the component policy of the

Conservative Party. So why should I try to defend what is not in

existence? Iain Duncan Smith floating a few thoughts? I don't

know what that amounts to. Does it mean that someone said he had said

it? Did some adviser say, "We are going to ask him to do it."?

said it to the Today programme, which is The Bible of modern

politics(!) He suggested a cap on child-related benefits for two

children. The fact is that he has been a pioneer in looking at the

whole back to work agenda and he's floating an idea which is his.

Let's get back to Heather Frost. And the 11 children and the eco-

mansion that is being built. What is your view of that? I think I

start off where virtually everybody would start off and say why are we

providing facilities of this sort for somebody who has got 11

children? That is way out of what normal expectation is. That is one

in the gut starts. Now you put yourself in the position of the

local authority. The fact is what are they going to do? Will they put

her on the street? They have to have a solution. If there were 11

children, it takes a lot of accommodation. If I was in the

local authority, I would never put her on the street. You then have a

problem. Fortunately, it is so much of an exceptional problem that I

don't think we ought to turn it into public policy. The man up

there on the right? The simple reason why we are providing this

house is the Conservative- originated policy of selling all

the council houses. Peter Hitchens? That point is absolutely right. The

much-lauded policy of selling council houses has been a

catastrophe for this country. It has deprived us of a very important

resource for a cheap electoral gain. The way in which this decision is

now universally praised always puzzles me. I think now that

housing benefit - it costs more than the Royal Air Force and it is

a much more inefficient, unfair and wasteful way of housing people than

the council houses used to be. The issue about the lady herself - I'm

all in favour of big families. They should be founded upon marriage and

they should be founded upon people supporting themselves if at all

possible. If you set up a system where welfare payments are paid and

houses given to people who are not in that circumstance, you can't be

surprised when they take advantage of that system. I don't blame this

lady for what she has done at all. I blame the politicians who, for 50

years, have encouraged this kind of behaviour. You can't say it is the

responsibility of people who look at the system and take advantage of

it. That is absurd. If we want it to stop, we need to say, "Reform

the welfare system which you have made absurdly overgenerous and do

something about restoring the institution of marriage which you

have destroyed." APPLAUSE Giles Fraser? I think it is scandalous

that we are using the example of this woman as propaganda for

benefit cuts. We are being softened up by examples like this that there

is some distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor. It

is a cover for a much greater scandal which is the scandal in our

housing market, the scandal of what's happening to poor people,

particularly in London where house prices are so out of control and

ordinary people can't live here and what's happening at the moment in

London is that ordinary people are being priced out of the centre of

town and we will end up being like Paris in this country where all of

the poor people live on the outside and the wealthy live on the middle.

These are the real scandals. You find one small example of a woman

like this which tugs at this seems unfair. It is propaganda for a

nastier form of cuts. That is the real scandal here. You, Sir? Well,

after doing just a little bit of research, I found out a bit more.

It wasn't a local authority that built the house for her. The local

authority sold the land to a housing association, the housing

association then built the house. She doesn't own the house. She is

paying rent on it. Being a caseworker, I know that once she

leaves, she does leave that house, another large family will pay rent

to the housing association. Isn't this another example of stories

that demonise people on benefit because it's now become public

enanynumber one? As a caseworker, I used -- public enemy number one? As

a caseworker, I have worked hard all my life. This is making people

feel ashamed of the money they have taken. We know the economy is bad.

There are more people on benefits. We should be helping these people,

not hindering them. OK. The man on the back row? The reason the UK has

such large volumes of debt is because of these high welfare

payouts. We can't afford to build people houses. What do you think of

this case? It is an example of how generous these welfare benefits are

that we can't afford. The man over there on the left? I take issue

with the Canon. Anybody has an entitlement to live in Central

London. I live in Hertfordshire. I can't afford to live in Central

London. Why should people have it as an entitlement? APPLAUSE You

want to answer that? The question is what sort of city do we want? Do

we want a city full of very, very expensive houses owned by Russian

oligarchs where no-one lives, it becomes a ghost town and all the

poorer people live on the outside? We want a London that is a mix of

people. I understand, I couldn't afford to live in London in a

million years. I understand that. The idea that ordinary people can't

afford to live in London I think is a scandal. We will come to a

question that is pertinent to that in a moment. Diane Abbott? Anybody

who thinks that overall the welfare system is absurdly overgenerous

doesn't know many people trying to live on welfare benefit. Not a week

goes by without one of these scare stories, picking out someone who

doesn't seem like a member of the deserving poor, they are splashed

in our tabloid papers and it is to soften us up for benefit cuts. And

when you drill down with these stories, it is never what it seems.

She's not been given a house, as the gentleman pointed out. The

council sold a piece of land for �220,000 to a housing association

who have built a six-bedroom unit on it which she's going to be

allocated. When her children leave home, she will have to move out.

The point is this: It has been a principle of British welfare

legislation since the 1945 National Assistance Act that we don't put

children on the street. The gentleman that said it is a waste

of public money. What are you suggesting? Are you suggesting the

children would go into care? You cannot take these bad, difficult

cases and use them to undermine our system of welfare. There is an

underlying narrative, oh London, Hackney, the East End is full of

people on benefits who don't want to work. I see more people on

benefits every week. I don't see people who don't want to work. I

see people that want to work. Kids that have left university, people

that have been made redundant who want to work and cannot get jobs.

I'm glad unemployment is coming down. The issue is not this one

woman with her Baroque case. The issue is how we are softened up for

increasing benefit cuts whereby the poor pay for financial prices which

bankers made. APPLAUSE You, Sir? The fact that every penny collected

in income tax goes on welfare, that is a sign that the welfare is too

big? Half of that money goes to pensioners? Are you suggesting we

should stop paying old able pensions? Not at all. The amount of

income tax doesn't cover the Navy, the Army. Most money that is

collected goes on welfare and pensions. It's a huge amount.

you suggesting that we should spend more on helicopter gunships and

less on the most vulnerable in our society? Not at all. You are

suggesting the proportion of money spent on welfare is greater than it

should be from the tax take, is that your point? If every penny

collected goes on welfare, all the other things that have to be paid

for... Vince Cable, the man in the know on this? Let's start from the

same point. This was a banking- induced crisis. We are paying the

price for it. The economy is smaller and we are poorer. There is

a genuine problem about the welfare budget. That doesn't mean to say

you should demonise the people who are beneficiaries of it. The budget

is rising rapidly and we have to deal with it. There is a problem

around housing benefit. Giles explained the reason that in London

85,000 council houses have been lost, they were sold. There are

more people needing them so they are pushed into the private sector,

rents go through the roof, you, the taxpayer, has to subsidise the

landlords to keep those people in place and the budget gets out of

control. That is why we have introduced some painful and

difficult measures. It is possible - it is right - to be compassionate

to people who are genuinely poor and need help while recognising

that there is a real problem with the welfare budget. We have to deal

with it. It is very interesting - the whole financial explosion began

in America when President Clinton encouraged them to be more generous.

It then became a phenomenon across the Western world. You can single

out the bankers. Nobody is likely to defend them. We are in the City

of London. Governments spent more money than their economies could

afford. Individuals borrowed on their credit cards, on mortgages,

they are all hocked up to the eyeballs and the bankers are in the

middle. We were all in the same game, politically, economically,

banking companies, the whole lot. The bubble burst. When it burst,

everybody drew in their horns. It is so easy to find someone to blame.

We were all involved in this, particularly the last Labour

Government. No. Let's move on. It is from Kate Horton. The latest

census suggests that white Brits are in a minority in London

accounting for 45% of residents. Is this a good or a bad long-term

trend? The latest census suggests white British-born are in a

minority in London, 45% of residents. Is it good, or a bad

$:/STARTFEED. Michael Heseltine? there's one speech I made of which

I was proud, it was in 1981, which included the words "They are black,

they are British, they were born here, they vote here." that is a

fact. So there's nothing you can do to turn back history. I defied my

party in the late 60s over the race relations Bill when I believed that

anyone who's lived in this country was entitled to live here within

the law without prejudice and with equal opportunity. That now is the

position so is it strong, is it weak, is it right, is it wrong? It

is a fact, and we should live with it and we should build on it and we

should see the incredible talent that there is in the immigrant

community and always has been, whether they were Jews or Catholics,

whatever, that's a different issue, but still, it's the same issue that

we have had many diverse groups of people and the only way we will all

prosper is to treat them well, live with them and give them the

opportunity to contribute to the wider benefit of society which they

want to do because actually they have exact think same instincts

that we do. They want to be happy, they want to love their children,

live in peace, live in the law and the vast majority of them want to

work hard. APPLAUSE

Kate buzz that answer your question?

Yes, I think so. I wanted to know everyone's views on that. All right.

What do you think, Peter Hitchens, about the balance that she's

described? Well, my gauge rises at the use of the word "White". The

issue should never be and really should never be the colour of

somebody's skin. I thought we all very long ago accepted that what

mattered about somebody was not the colour of his skin but the content

of his character. I'm not interested in what colour they are.

Why does the census... I don't know. Should the census... Many... The

real question is, does a country which has a very large amount of

immigration adapt to the immigrants or do the immigrants who arrive in

that country adapt to that country? And it's my very strong view that

the only hope of a tranquil and peaceful and productive and

successful society is that the migrants adapt to the place to

which they come. For very many years, we have not been encouraging

or indeed helping them to do that. We have been encouraging through a

policy of official state multiculturalism that people should

stay separate and remain within their migrant communities. We have

not created a single British nationality. There are various

feeble efforts to make them take exams in how to claim social

security benefits or who was Winston Churchill - that's not the

same. We have ceased to be proud of our own country culture, history,

religion, language and we haven't asked our new citizens to be proud

of them either. I see the result of that. It's not a question of

whether they are white, it's a question of whether they are

British. Britain is ceasing to become Britain, that is my view and

that's a great shame for us who're here and for those who've come.

APPLAUSE You, Sir? I had the privilege to be

a games maker during the Paralympic Games last year, London 2012. We'd

not have got those Games had we not been a diverse and international

City. I had the privilege of meeting citizens of 20, 30, 40

different countries during my time as a Games maker and I said to them

"What do you think of the Paralympics, what do you think of

London?" and the common response that I got wherever in the world

they come from is "London is my second favourite City". London is

their favourite second city because of its diversity, because of its

international perspective, because of its history.

The person up there? APPLAUSE I was just following on

from that gentleman's point that I don't think that immigrants come

here to become British, they come here because it's the closest they

can find to a democracy where they can live the lives that they want

to live to follow the face that they want to follow -- faith that

they want to follow, and that should be celebrated and that's

what makes Britain British. Giles Fraser, can I just repeat the

question. The latest census says white British are now in a minority

in London, 45% of residents. Is that good or bad as a trend?

indifferent to it. I think it makes no difference, white, black,

whatever. I'm not interested and I don't think that the census ought

to collect that information at all. I mean, the point, the underlying

point is that I think London is the most wonderfully diverse place in

the world, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else precisely because of

that. It's always had a history of welcoming people from all around

the world. My surname was originally Freederberg, not Fraser,

because a lots of my family came over here as Jews and contributed

greatly to the society as waves of people from all around the world

have done so. It enriches our culture and the idea that it's a

problem that multiculturalism is a problem. I'm an unashamed

multiculturalist, it adds hugely to what is so rich and exciting about

place like this. You disagree with Peter? Completely.

The woman up there in the back row? My grandparents came to this

country in the early 20th century as immigrants from Eastern Europe

and brought up my parent who is in turn brought up me to respect

everything British. This country fed us, clothed us, educated us. I

don't think it's a problem with colour, I think any problem that we

have is in my grandparents house, English was spoken, everybody was

expected to learn our host language, to learn our host manners, to

respect the law, et cetera, and everything that goes with it. So

when people are talking about colour, I don't actually think they

are meaning colour, I think they are meaning culture and that's

where I think that we have to integrate to get a fully integrated

community. Diane Abbott?

APPLAUSE Well, I'm one of those 55% non-

white people living in London. Let me say this; London is the City

that immigration made. It's not a question of London tolerating

immigrants, immigrants made London, whether it was Irish in the 19th

century, whether it was Asian shopkeepers, whether it's French

and American bankers in the City of London, all the great world Cities,

London and New York and Paris, they are built by immigrants from people

that attract all over the world. As for the talk of how we non-white

Britons have to adapt to British culture, there is no group of

people more passionately pro- British, more passionately pro-

Royalty actually than amongst the west Indians with whom I grew up.

It's crude to assume that because you were born overseas you don't

love this country and the Royal Family. There is talk about fewer

white people and they are moving out. The demographic patterns in

London are to do with class, not colour. My parents came to this

country, lived in Paddington. They moved out to Harrow, then to

Edgware. Now, my brother lives in Buckinghamshire. That's not white

flight, that is people gradually moving up the social ladder. Class

is the issue, not race. I'm proud to be a Londoner, I'm proud London

is one of the most diverse cities on the planet and that is what

makes it a great city, its diversity.

APPLAUSE I agree with everything Diane's

just said. As it happens, I have a racially mixed family of my own. I

don't know whether my three children and grandchildren are

regarded as white or non-white on your definition, I mean I think

the... The census? Well it's offence toif try to draw

conclusions based on it and it takes us back to the kind of South

African apartheid. Do you think the census should abandon this? I think

it should. It creates unnecessary gition. Going back to the original

question, is this good or bad - what is bad is if you get

segregation and ghettos. Some American cities have that. I don't

think it's happening in London, I think London is a much more mobile,

vibrant city and our ethnic minorities spread out. I represent

a constituency in South West London, Twickenham, when I first went to

live there it was almost exclusively white. Now it has an

ethnic minority population of 10- 12%, it's ethnically mixed, and

that's desirable and white. Where the public debate is, it shouldn't

be about race. If there is an argument about migration and much

of it in London has been from eastern yap, it's from Poland,

Lithuania and they of course make a positive contribution to the

economy. But the migration issue is separate from the white non-white

thing which I think we should bury. You, Sir? There is an article on

the BBC News web page highlighting a white population the size of

Glasgow's left London, so it is white flight which kind of

highlights that this integration isn't happening. It's a class issue.

It is not the case that white Londoners look at an area and think,

there's lots of people, I'm not moving there. Middle class people

are moving into Hackney, Brixton, even moving into Brent which was

very western when I was a child. There is an issue about class. The

issue about colour is I think a misnomer.

Michael Heseltine? I think the fascinating thing to me is that

London is, as we all know, enormously diverse today and Boris

Johnson's just become an elected mayor and that says something about

the spread of interests that exist. I don't follow that one. It is,

because if it was a class phenomenon and the poor and all

that and the blacks... They wouldn't have voted for Boris?

That's right. The point I want to make is about the census. It so

happens that in a job I'm doing for the Government at the moment, we

are looking at the ethnic mix of Birmingham. You can get statistics

which show that the unemployment levels in Birmingham are bad

compared with other parts of the country. But if you then look at

the ethnic mix of certain communities, you find that they are

very significantly Pakistani or Bangladeshi. The women in those

communities, for cultural reasons, don't want to work on the same

proportionate levels as other groups of people. So by knowing the

racial mix, you realise that it's not that the economy isn't working

in those areas, it's simply that the culture within those families

persuades the women not to try and work. So it can be helpful in

knowing what the problems are. OK. Do you agree with that? You,

Sir? Well, before everyone jumps on the bandwagon that Britain is

losing its Britishness, I would like to ask people like Peter

Hitchens define being British? Sorry, what is the question? Define

being British. He wants you to define being British before you

assert that Britain is losing its Britishness. I don't think David

wouldn't allow me to go on long enough. David wouldn't allow you to

go on very long, no. I've write an good book about this. We won't

allow you to promote your book. Which I would invite you the read.

We'll move on. We have had a certain amount of time on that and

I want a question from Peter Beaumont, please? Are the numbers

in George Osborne's economic strategy as wildly optimistic as

his forecast for the 4G auction? Remembering that they were hoping

to raise �3.5 billion and only got �2 and a bit from the announcement

today and it was a key component of the Osborne economic strategy in

the Autumn Statement that this money would come through so they

seem to have a large hole there. Giles Fraser, do you think that the

optimism that George Osborne shows is as exemplified by the 4G

auction? Well, it's clear that the numbers don't add up and that...

Stkpwhrs which numbers? They don't add up in the last budget which was

premised on the fact that there was going to be more money coming in

from the sale of 4G. But actually, it's a wider problem, the problem

about the way in which that budget really doesn't work because it's

premised on the idea that austerity is the only way forward. I think

it's just another example of how the numbers don't work out for the

current Government and what we really need to do is invest money

in our infrastructure, particularly in our housing, to stimulate the

economy, to create more growth and so that actually we can find a way

of getting this economy kick started again. But at the moment,

if all we are doing is garrotting our economy with austerity, we are

never going to find a way forward. It looks like it will balloon under

the coalition to something like �600 billion more in the

coalition's time in office? Isn't that sensible? What we are trying

to do is to reduce - sorry to use economic jargon - the structural

deficit. It is the amount of revenue we used to get from the

banking system that disappeared. The Government has to deal with

that over time. We started hoping to do this over four years. We are

now planning to do it over seven, which is the time period the last

Labour Government set. I mean, when the economy slows down, the

sensible thing to do, it's the let the deficit widen temporarily -

that's what's happened. Similarly, the Government has to borrow to do

the kind of things Giles is talking about. That was deliberately

allowing the debt to grow? What the Government is trying to do is two

things. This is why the austerity versus growth argument is so

foolish. The first is to try to get the public finances in order - we

are doing that. You have to try and stimulate growth. That does involve

doing some of the things Giles has described - and that's absolutely

right. So we have to have attempts to get growth alongside dealing

with the deficit. The reason why this is so difficult is because we

are dealing with a crisis the likes of which we have not had before. I

have often said this is the economic equivalent of a heart

attack. Economies don't just bounce back. We are dealing with a banking

system that has been badly damaged. We are dealing with Government

finances that have been hit in an extraordinary way. We are dealing

with a pile-up of personal debt which Michael Heseltine described.

Getting out of this crisis will be very difficult. It's got to be done

by this combination of discipline with the public finances and trying

to support and stimulate economic growth. You are saying that for the

moment, Osborne's policy, the coalition policy, is deliberately

to allow debt to increase because that will expand the economy?

I have never heard it described like that. We are flexible and we

have to be flexible. You, Sir? one thing they are not doing, there

is a good idea to improve the rail service, not build HS2, but what

they are not doing is cutting the enormous salaries of town hall

workers, civil servants and their enormous pensions. That is the one

thing they are not doing. They are cutting the wrong things and not

expanding the right things. Building aircraft carriers with no

aircraft - it is outrageous. APPLAUSE Michael Heseltine? Well,

the reason why the deficit is continuing is because the

Government has decided that it will not cut the Health Service. It will

not emasculate - you may think - you want to cut the Health Service,

you get elected on that platform. This coalition is not going to do

it. The welfare system is being preserved largely in tact. So

Vince's point is the right one... TELEPHONE RINGS There is a

telephone going. Is that your wife?! LAUGHTER It is the

Chancellor! You have gone off message! No. My wife is supporting

what I have been saying! She rang me to let me know! I'm not going to

be stopped. The fact of the matter is, the reason why the economy and

George Osborne's budget is taking longer to sort is because we are in

the middle of a world recession that none of us have seen before.

It's taking longer to sort out. There is no domestic policy that is

going to make a serious difference to the world situation in which we

trade. If we can't see recovery in Europe, if China is still slowing,

if India is slowing, if America's got a cliff-edge situation, that

limits our discretion and it is simply dishonest for any party to

come and pretend there is a serious option. We have to sweat it out.

The fact is the extraordinary thing to me in this relatively stagnant

situation is we have got more people at work in this country

today than we have ever had. We have more women at work. We have

more young people at work. So, despite the appalling economic

world circumstances, this coalition has managed to preserve employment

at record levels. That is extraordinarily impressive. Diane

Abbott? Sweat it out, the only thing to do? The problem is it is

the poorest and middle-income people that are suffering because

of this Government's economic policies. Dr Cable is a reasonable

man, propping up an unreasonable Tory-led Government. Of course,

George Osborne's figures are dodgy. You might argue a lot about George

Osborne is dodgy! To be perfectly serious, they came in, this

coalition, promising to cut the deficit in four years. To clear up

your mess! No, you seem to have forgotten... APPLAUSE You seem to

be overlooking... We can't overlook your mess! The collapse of Lehman's,

but my point is this. The reason George Osborne's figures are dodgy

is because he's completely predictable. You do not achieve

growth by making the cuts in public expenditure that this Government

has done. For Lord Heseltine to say, "The reason we can't clear up the

deficit is because we didn't cut the NHS." Tell that to the people

in Lewisham who are seeing their hospital close. APPLAUSE To clarify,

are you saying therefore that the debt should be allowed to rise even

further than it is rising at the moment? No. Oh yes you are. We have

always said there had to be cuts. Cuts of this scale - the problem is,

as you probably know, that when you cut in the public sector, it has a

multiplier effect in the private sector. There are tradesmen,

builders, service workers all across London who can't make money

because of the cuts in public sector spending. The cuts the

Tories have made have plunged us into a double-dip recession and if

we are not very fortunate, it will be a triple-dip recession.

Osborne's figures are off. The rest of us are paying the price.

right. Yes, you, Sir? The problem doesn't matter if the deficit is

growing at the moment. The problem is is the Bank of England's

credibility about to be tested? We have rising rates and we have a

falling currency. That is is a real problem. Can we manage our debt?

You think the size of the deficit... It doesn't matter. Everybody has a

large deficit. Can we manage it? Will it become a problem for the

Bank of England? The woman behind you? I was going to say there are

some areas of our economy that are still growing, like the creative

and cultural industries which are 7% of our GDP. What can we do to

help those industries? We will come to that point. The woman on the

second row, third row from the back? I think corporate tax from

private companies seem to be a driving force in raising a tax

revenue and to help pay the country's deficit, what is the

Government doing helping businesses and promoting growth? I'm not clear

what you are saying. You should or shouldn't be relying on corporate

tax? Corporate tax is helping raise tax revenue. The Government seems

to be helping - the Government doesn't seem to be helping private

businesses to promote growth. The man up there? I find it rather

rich to hear Diane Abbott say that the public sector, there's cuts

from Government expenditure. The Government is not really cutting

public sector expenditure. It's still increasing in real terms. And

what Labour left as an inheritance was so bad that the country is now

having to pay the price for that. You, Sir? It is doing it in my

hospital in Lewisham and it is doing it because neighbouring

hospitals have such poor PFIs negotiated by the Government. They

are closing a functioning hospital. They are making cuts where they can.

Vince Cable, on the point of public sector cuts. Is he right or he

right? There are certainly parts of Government where we have had to

take painful measures and real cuts have had to be made. The NHS budget

is protected. There are pressures on the NHS. I remember fighting

hospital closures when Diane's party were this power. The NHS

budget has been ringfenced and protected. The rest of Government

is having to take some very serious cuts. You are looking pained?

is a moral issue here. Seeing as we are sitting in the City of London

and the city was part responsible for the financial mess. The banks,

yes. If it is the case that it's people in this square mile that

were largely responsible and yet the people who will pay the price

for that are the poor and vulnerable on benefits and who need

our hospitals and so forth, there is a moral problem with that

equation. Peter Hitchens? Well, it is interesting to listen to the

Conservative and Labour Party, which aren't that different.

will be better? This isn't a crisis. This is national decline. We have

been living for many, many years far beyond our means as a country

and as people. And now the debts are being paid. They will be paid -

this is already happening with the currency - it will happen more when

we lose our AAA rating - through a decline in the value of the pound

and the consequent inflation. It's happening already through state-

sponsored inflation through quantitative easing. What will

happen in the end is that we will cease to be able to pay because of

this inflation and because of this decline for the things which we

have refused to reform. As a country, we will not look in the

face, no political party - Michael Heseltine is quite right - no

political party will stand and say, "We will cut the National Health

Service." They would lose the election. All right, don't let the

Government do it. Let it happen through inflation and national

decline. That is what you are seeing. This crisis will not end.

It will go on and on as we sink to a lower level in the world. Do you

agree with that? There is something in it. I have always been in favour

of reducing public consumption. This morality issue is the one that

Just take this issue of welfare reform. Now, what this Government

is doing in order to contain the welfare budget is saying that there

can't be more for a family on welfare than the average earnings

of those in work. In other words, the people paying the taxes in work

shouldn't expect to sustain living standards for people on the welfare

benefit. I can tell you that that will lead to people saying, "Oh,

what about poor Willie "and it is a hard-luck story. That is is a moral

issue. Why should the vast majority of people at work pay to sustain

families who are out of work at higher living standards? That is a

moral issue. APPLAUSE Vince Cable, briefly. We have to stop, actually.

Our hour is up. We are going to be in Eastleigh next Thursday. We will

go out live after the voting is over. We will be able to talk about

over. We will be able to talk about why people voted the way they did.

I don't know who is going to be on the penl yet, except for the film-

maker -- the panel yet, except for the film-maker Ken Loach. We will

be in Dover the week after. You can apply via